[Toad]

I understand that the Nikon mirrorless camera will be based on a smaller sensor than m43. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The promise of m43 has always been a *reasonable* compromise between size and image quality - and the size of the camera/lens combo is almost completely dependent on sensor size. If Nikon can develop a sensor that comes close to the quality of the m43 sensor and is smaller, then in theory, an interchangeable lens camera that is truly pocket-sized may be possible. Its all about compromises, and Nikon has the advantage of looking at what has worked and what has not worked in the current crop of mirrorless (not just m43) cameras.

The big question is what lens support the new system will have. No point having a really small camera with legacy large lenses (I'm looking at you Sony NEX).

Time will tell. As Pavel says, it may be interesting to wait and see.

[Pavel]

I did not hear about the sensor size. indeed I heard the opposite. Small body with large lenses is at best a temporary stop gap solution. Lenses must be in balance with the body and both must be significantly smaller to compensate for the loss of the mirror and pentaprism.

[matthew]

There are rumors of Nikon mirrorless desinged for pros with its own line of lenses. It may be interesting to wait and see.

There are persistent rumours of a Nikon camera to challenge the Canon G-series as well, but it hasn't happened yet.

I've been able to play with the X100 a bit more, and am liking it a lot. But then I'm a sucker for cameras that can sync their flash at any shutter speed. Somehow I still haven't taken any sample photos with it, but I have no doubt that a sensor and lens that are tuned to each other and designed with image quality as a top priority – an amazingly rare thing – will give excellent performance.

(I'm still not going to buy one.)

[Toad]

I did not hear about the sensor size. indeed I heard the opposite.

Well, rumors will be rumors, and its easy to waste a lot of time listening to them, but what I have heard is a 2.5x crop factor (m43 is a 2x crop factor) for the Nikon offering.

Mind you, I also heard that April 4, 2011 is the formal announcement date. This being April 4, 2011, and well after the closing bell, that rumor seems unlikely...

Your original "wait and see" advice would seem to be the optimal strategy here.

[Pavel]

photorumors talks of X300 with interchangeable lenses next year. Interesting. A lot will depend on the size of these lenses RELATIVE to both the body AND DSLR lenses with APSC sensor.

[shuttertalk]

Not sure if anyone has seen this but photographyblog posted a comparison of noise between the x100 and the panasonic gh2 which uses a m43 sensor.

http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/...d-to-head/

Pretty impressive - for me (apart from the colour saturation), I start to observe a noticeable difference at ISO800 and higher...

I think even the ISO6400 shot is more than usable...

[Zig]

This continues to be an excellent thread; quite fascinating. Matthew...isn't it maddening that he can get his paws all over the X-100...yet really helpful the summation that there are still factors that stop him Adding To Cart! Am glad you are doing the hands-on stuff there, Matthew...it's like having one's own "try before you buy" assistant! Actually, I never knew you could synch flash throughout(I must have, but the penny never dropped consciously). And an excellent point about the optimising due to matching lens to sensor.
Matthew: I realise you've not yet taken any pics with the X-100. Let me suppose, hypothetically, that you had, and that we had pin-sharp results in all zones and cracking usability up to ISO 1600: now, if that were the case, what factors would constitute your personal remaining reasons not to get one? I'm likewise conscious that I'm not quite tipped over into Must-Buy, and interested to hear what your own list would include.

[matthew]

Zig, I doubt that most of my reasoning will help, but here it is:

Objective reasoning: It's a digital camera. If I'm not experiencing any critical shortcoming, then waiting can only be to my advantage. It will get cheaper or there will be another one, which I could like better. That's not to say that there's something flawed in this camera that needs to be fixed, it's just a law of consumer electronics. Computers, cameras, printers, phones – it's inevitable.

Personal reasoning: Like a French knight in a Monty Python film, I've already got one. Okay, technically I don't, but between the ZM Ikon, GH1, and D700 there's not much that the X100 can do, and quite a bit that it can't. Sure, I don't have a small rangefinder-style digital camera with exceptional image quality all in one package, but I have all of them individually. Spending money on an X100 means that cameras that I've already spent money on will spend more of their time sitting on the shelf. They do too much of that already.

Now, if I had only one other camera I'd be all over the X100. (Especially if I already had a predisposition to high-quality prime lenses, and my other camera was something big – perhaps a 1D-series Canon, as a completely hypothetical example.) But this wouldn't be camera #2 for me, it would be camera #12.

The flash sync is a side effect of the leaf shutter, which is capable of shutter speeds much higher than the 1/500 that's typical of the design. (Apparently the maximum shutter speed is related to the aperture - the wider the opening, the longer it takes to close – but there's also the built-in ND filter to help out for going wide-open in daylight.) It also gives the X100 an incredibly quiet 'snick' of a shutter sound. Very sexy, and it would be a phenomenal camera when photographing acoustic musicians or singers, or even when working around mics that can pick up stray noise. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this camera is quieter when naked than a Pro SLR that's enclosed in a sound blimp. But again, this really isn't something I do – but if I did, then X100 would be calling my name.

I hope that helps.

[Zig]

Excellent; yes, a great help thank you.
Doh: of course it's a leaf shutter(hits forehead); yesindeedy, as per my Pentax 67(which is still upstairs).
D'you know, I'm still that close to wanting one: I'm not sure as yet that any gains in terms of anticipating the decisive moment from outside frame, are cancelled by the AF speed...but thinking that through, I'd have to get hands on at full aperture to find out. But yes, an ideal 2nd camera for me in many ways , I guess, given that the 21mm will be superglued to the 1Ds. My jury will remain out as it debates just how many ways would be acceptable. If it dropped its price by even 100 quid, its acceptability would grow on me.
Have any of you heard if supplies are eased yet?

[shuttertalk]

Not sure how much weight people give to these scores but DXO marks have published their results for the X100:

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/new_...epix_x100/

According to them:

the X100’s sensor is essentially on a par with the Pentax K-x and the Sony A55 in terms of colour depth and dynamic range, and is significantly ahead of both in terms of high-ISO image quality in low light. The Nikon D7000 and the Sony A580, on the other hand, scored better on every front.

Note that this is just RAW sensor performance, so doesn't take into account things like lenses, image processing, etc.

[Toad]

RAW sensor performance is the only thing that counts IMO as I don't shoot jpegs.On the flip side, I don't have a clue what DXO is blathering on about with all their charts and figures. Sounds like the Fuji X100 can hold its own sensor wise - provided that larger = better when looking at DXO numbers...:|

[Zig]

Yep, not all that well communicated.

[matthew]

DxO is pretty geeky, but there's certainly less useful things that people spend a lot of time obsessing about. Of course there are a huge number of other things that matter – lenses come to mind – but it's a useful baseline comparison between cameras. Basically, higher numbers are better (a difference less than 3 isn't significant) and most importantly, the results are downsampled to 8MP so that cameras with different resolution are compared based on their typical image quality rather than per-pixel results.

[shuttertalk]

Here's another hands on review from tested which actually has pics of the electronically augmented optical viewfinder, which looks absolutely spectacular (and a tad science fiction-y).
http://www.tested.com/news/tested-fujifi...mera/2233/

However, the reviewer points out some shortcomings in focusing, both manual and auto.

Perhaps the most glaring annoyance is the camera's manual focus system — in that it doesn’t work. The whole point of a focus ring is to give precise control over the composition of your image, but that’s something the X100 fails at with hopeless abandon. Give the ring a quarter turn, and the difference is imperceptible. Complete an entire 360° rotation, and you can start to see the plane of focus shift — but just barely. It takes five or six full rotations before you can appreciate an actual change in the focal plane, which makes the current manual focus implementation all but useless. It's rumored Fuji may fix the focusing ratio in an upcoming firmware update, but there has been no official word as of yet. Automatic focus isn't much better. Not only is the X100's motor system slow, but it has to be manually switched to macro-focus mode for objects less than 2.6 feet away.

Hmmm....

[Toad]

5-6 turns for manual focus?? That don't sound good.

[Zig]

.. I'd heard that both auto and manual focusing was slow, hence my concern that gains made by having a 'finder-style view might be offset. I'm sorry to hear that this is the case and that this particular reviewer also had such an experience. I remember reading recently(dpreview, so add a pinch) about a "firmware update not addressing real concerns"(my paraphrase here, not a source quote), so I'm wondering if this matter is what was being referred to. I wonder if this is a mechanical/gearing ratio issue instead, however. I really do hope this camera flies, though; I've had great respect for Fuji for many years..for me, their medium-format rangefinders were(and are) in a class of their own and they've typified a unique and inventive approach. The X-100's engenderment has not gone smoothly..and what with its rollout coinciding with the terrible natural disaster in Japan, I feel Fuji needs a real blessing here.

[matthew]

I haven't used the manual focus ring, so I can't comment on the specifics of its performance, but my understanding is that it's a focus-by-wire control, so changing its performance should be relatively easy for Fuji. Remember that this is the same technique used (and loved by brand-trolls) for 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras, where it's also sensitive to the speed that the ring is moved instead of just the distance.

The good news, if you can call it that, is that the focus control is extremely narrow, badly positioned, and partially obstructed by the aperture control ring. It's so difficult to actually reach and use that the number of turns it takes isn't likely to be an issue.

[Zig]

Sharp as a greased whippet as usual Matthew.
I confess I don't know what focus-by-wire means, so am off to have a look..

...OK, I'm back. Oh, I see.

Me no leica.

[Toad]

Focus by wire is often problematic as there is no tactile feedback to the photographer. With a mechanical focus ring, you turn 180 degrees and you hit the end of the throw - you know without looking that you are either: at infinity or at closest focus distance. If you know your lenses well, in theory, you should be able to focus without looking if you are sufficiently stopped down. (can you tell that I am getting used to manual focus?).

Focus by wire is electronic and not mechanical - so the focus ring on most focus by wire lenses goes around and around without actually ever running into a mechanical stop at either end of the range. Works fine with auto-focus, but its a completely visual process in manual focus mode. This is inferior to linked mechanical focusing in my opinion. The reported issue with having to rotate the focus ring 5 or 6 times completely around to move through the focus range is ridiculous (if true) - and will make the X100 uselessly slow for manual focus work.

Having said that, this is completely correctable via software if I understand the technology correctly. I can't believe that Fuji won't fix this in firmware very quickly - especially given their target market.

[Zig]

I'd guess, from what you and Matthew have said, that it's thus possible to be too heavy-handed with focus-by-wire, rotating too quickly for the cpu to catch up. I gather there are indeed many top-rate lenses out there that use this principle and that folks find their own level, modus operandi and making it work comfortably for them. Personally, I too feel I prefer and now need the very same "tactile feedback" in a wideangle, vastly preferring manual to AF for wides; from 50mm upwards though, it's AF all the way for me...and if I want to focus hyperfocally I use one button for focusing on a nearer point, the other for shutter/metering.

[shuttertalk]

I'd like to see more viewpoints on the manual focus issue - perhaps it's just a user error or lack of understanding from a true photographer's standpoint. Perhaps the focus mechanism is "geared" - i.e. turn slowly and it changes focus slowly, quick turn and it moves faster?

Nevertheless I agree with regards to focus-by-wire - it's better than nothing but not ideal. Mind you the last one I tried was the Canon Pro1 circa 2005, and there was a noticeable lag between twist and actual focus. Hopefully things have improved since then.

[matthew]

Pretty much every camera system from the past decade have been focus-by-wire: 4/3 and micro 4/3, Sony NEX, Samsung NX, and just about every compact/bridge camera. Samsung's even 'upgraded' their most recent NX cameras by adding a button that turns the focusing ring into a general-purpose control ring, similar to the Canon S90/95 and Olympus XZ-1 compacts.

I've quite liked the manual focus system on the Panalympus system (Olympasonic?) because I only use it for macro work. A quick spin - literally, a sudden fast movement - racks the focus a long distance, while slower movement gives tremendous fine control. (An excellent use of live view magnification, as well.) But that's a very long way from zone focusing in street photography, with its preference for focusing with minimal attention to the camera and quick reaction times.

The X100 is a compact auto-focus-driven camera – with great build quality, an innovative viewfinder, and a large sensor – but this isn't a Leica any more than we're in Paris in the 1930's. But then even a Leica sometimes isn't a Leica: the X1, Fuji's closest spiritual competitor, not only has electronic focus control but does it through a thumb wheel that's nowhere near the lens.

But for what it's worth – quite possibly nothing, it may just be a teaser – a little bird did tell me that they're working on an interchangeable-lens version to be released next year. Perhaps it would have a mechanical focus coupling?

[Toad]

Damn little birds always keep us waiting for the next thing.

[adam]

Still waiting impatiently.
Ended up buying other camera in the meantime! haha

[matthew]

There's another review of the X100 at The Register, a UK-based news site mostly focusing on technology and IT:

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/04/29/re...00_camera/